Thursday, December 27, 2012

Django, Django, Django. There is so much to say about this movie
it hard to know where to start. For those of you who know me personally, you'll
know that I am highly critical of Quentin Tarantino. I find a lot of his work
highly overrated, and even his best films don't crest my top 20. I do not, and
never have, worshiped at the alter of Tarantino, unlike a lot of young
filmmakers and film-goers. I like some of his films, I love a few, most I could
take or leave. But this film is right up my ally.

Tarantino has always had a flare for the absurd, and his pulpy, exploitative
films really speak to a modern audience. He uses his signature techniques, and
lengthy plots to draw the audience in, then hits them with action and violence
so over the top, you can't help but enjoy the ride.

Unlike Inglorious Bastards,
Django Unchained found a nice balance
between the goofy and the serious, a balance that supported the plot. Inglorious Bastards on the other hand,
starts out decent, but was ruined by Brad Pitt’s refusal to tone down his
already outrageous character. I maintain that Pitt was a horrible choice for
the lead and he ruined the film with his ‘look at me’ acting. However, Django
showed a slightly more controlled Tarantino who didn't let a single actor overtake
what turned out to be a very fluid film.

In true Tarantino fashion, there were some old favorites and
plenty of new faces and each of them excelled in their roles. No one added
extra bravado to the already absurd characters, unlike Brad Pitt who added that
gross southern accent that was incredibly distracting.

It is probably safe to say that this could be Jamie Foxx’s defining
role. He is Django. He perfectly embodies the bloodthirsty gunslinger with a
sense of humor and righteousness. You can’t help but love Django, for his
smart-assery, stoicism, and his unapologetic trigger finger. Django is a
complex character that at one moment laments killing a man in front of his son,
but then happily shoots slave traders who set him free, and gunned down Candie-Land Plantation’s Southern Belle.

Now,
there has been some criticism from people like Spike Lee who will say that Django Unchained didn't portray southern
slavery correctly, and was, perhaps, a little heavy with the word nigger and
the stereotyping of black people. While those arguments are valid, I know for a
fact that Tarantino did not set out to make a film about slavery.

Django Unchained is not a movie about
slavery, and anyone who thinks so lacks understanding of cinematic liberty and
style. Which is why I am forced to roll my eyes at Spike Lee's butt-hurt attitude. The idea of slavery was simply the device, the catalyst to a story that
turned out to be a classic fairy tale in which the hero rides through hell fire
to save the damsel in distress. Trying to dissect this film in a historical
sense is moronic. Tarantino doesn't think that way, he never has, and you will
drive yourself crazy if you look to him to be an intellectually responsible
historian. Film is art, and art is never wrong.

I
personally found the portrayal of slavery incredibly interesting, and humanizing.
In many films about slavery, often you see slaves shows as one group, with one
mentality, with the same feelings, and the same hardships. They are often shown
to be obedient, humble, and unwilling or unable to fight. Or they are held up as unsung
heroes who might have flourished in a different time. Which has always come off as a
bit unrealistic to me. The idea that everyone felt the same has never sat well with me.

There is always this black and white depiction of slavery and sometimes, its nice to see another perspective, whether historically correct or not. Films are unburdened by a strict adherence to history, and because of that, they are free to explore an infinite number of ideas and stories. This is why we love movies.

I
like that each slave in Django Unchained
had his or her own personality and struggle. There were the unknown house and
field slaves, that were whipped, ripped apart by dogs and beaten to death for
the amusement of their masters. But then there were concubine slaves who were
beautiful, wore the best clothes and sat in the company of white men. There
were mixed-race children who stood to defend their master and father. And then
there was Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Stephen, that was treated almost like an old
senile member of the Candie family, who found solidarity with his masters, instead of
his fellow slaves

Samuel L. Jackson was absolutely incredible, as he usually is. Playing the old house
servant and patriarch of the house slaves, he is vicious, callous and
incredibly loyal to his master. His character is almost as much of a villain as
plantation owner Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. But you can’t help
but love him as he lectures Candie about allowing Django to sleep in the big
house saying, “Letting a nigger sleep in the big house? Your daddy would roll
over in his grave.” Stephen is a deplorable character, but incredibly dynamic and fascinating.

Leonardo DiCaprio has come out in the past few days to say that he hated his character
Calvin Candie when he first read him in the script, but I thought he played him perfectly. Candie is horrible
plantation owner with a thirst for human suffering. But he straddles the line of being almost charming, and likeable at times. When he was first introduced, I was unsure how I felt about Candie. That was until Candie’s defining scene at the dinner table, a
scene that made me relish the conclusion of the film.

The
film also stars Kerry Washington who plays Broomhilda (Hildie), Django’s wife
and Christoph Waltz as the dentist Dr. Shultz. While Hildie’s character
didn’t get much screen time and really only served as the call to action,
Christoph Waltz was great and was responsible for holding the film together.

Not
only was Dr. Shultz likeable, he was witty, smart, and had little patience for
the "business of slavery." He was a strong character, well written, and well
played by a very respectable and seasoned actor.

The
cast is truly the strength of this film. Each had their role to play, and no
one stepped outside of their positions to take over the film. Despite the
star-studded cast, no one attempted to outshine their cast mates. No one threw
in last minute ideas that distracted from their character. Each played their
part, and played it well.

The
photography was beautiful and worth mentioning. Though I am a sucker for films
about the South & West. The sweeping landscapes and variety of locations
made the film visually rich. And the decadent interiors contrasted with the
blood stained walls and piles of dead bodies, was perfectly executed. This was
also Tarantino’s first film with out his long time editor Sally Menke by his
side, but Fred Raskin came in and did a good job despite being a little green.

The music is also worth mentioning because it gives the film that extra kick of modern kitsch. It's not only typical twangy country music you'd expect in a Western, but also hip-hop and classical music. The film showcases musicans as diverse as Rick Ross and Riziero Ortolani and neither feel out of place. The music stands out and forces the audience to take notice. The music is a character all its own, and it is used for specific, purposful reasons.

This
is a film that is an unapologetic celebration of kitsch, violence and
vengeance. This is not a film for those with delicate sensibilities or a weak
sense of humor. The film is an all out blood bath and you’ll laugh through the
whole thing. But from Tarantino, I would expect nothing less.

A
: Solid A for this movie. Jamie Foxx nails it, and Tarantino has outdone
himself, and has made me a believer! When you see it, see it in theaters, with
someone who loves movies, and you’ll have a great time. P.SAs many of you know, I love violent, action packed films and love to write about them. Movies have been a huge part of my life since I first saw Beauty and the Beast for the first time in theaters. But, I am also a firm believer that the only place we should ever see violence in our lives, is in the movies. That is where violence belongs, not in our real life communities.However, I reject the idea that movies, video games and other art forms are the reason we have so much violence in our society. There are those of us who are committed to peace, and community service, who also enjoy a movie like Django Unchained. There are those of us who love gore and horror films, but that doesn't mean we engage in such activities in real life. We enjoy films that depict certain violent activities but cringe in disgust when real life violence graces the news.
While there are some who become desensitized from an over indulgence in exclusively violent media, we can't point the finger at the media with out pointing 3 back at ourselves. It is not the media that creates the problem, it's so much deeper than that. It is our refusal to accept and deal with certain realities. Film, and art, are often painful reflections of our cultural problems. Many people believe that the movies effect society, which is true, but not as much as society effects the movies...

Monday, December 10, 2012

I don't usually post internet fails. But this was something I came across while browsing Pinterest. The thing about Pinterest, is that it's a lot like being stuck in a room listening to a random group of people you don't really know spouting their personal beliefs. Some of them talk about art, and travel and fashion, and you agree with them, and that's awesome. But then there are a lot of people who are lecturing you about working out, getting married, and Jesus. I like those people a lot less.

Then there are those people who post things so moronic, it makes me want to boycott the internet forever. This is one of those times. See if you can spot whats wrong. Post it.